[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Defending GCC considered futile |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:
> On 02/10/2015 07:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 00:30:03 -0800
>>> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
>>> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>>> address@hidden
>>>
>>>>> No, actually. Because the rest of the compiler wasn't intentionally
>>>>> made non-modular, it was possible for the LLDB team to re-use the
>>>>> code from the rest of the toolchain. LLDB doesn't need things like its
>>>>> own expression parsing and interpretation code because it can call
>>>>> into Clang/LLVM at will.
>>>>
>>>> Parsing source-code expression is a very small part of what GDB does.
>>>> So this is a red herring.
>>>
>>> It's also one of the most frustrating parts of GDB.
>>
>> I guess we have very different GDB experiences and/or needs, if this
>> is a significant issue for you. I almost never need to type complex
>> source-level expressions into a debugger. The reason is simple:
>> almost every interesting value is already assigned to some variable,
>> so most expressions I type are simple references to variables.
>
> <optimized out>
Most STL structures are also sort of a nuisance to examine in gdb.
I don't actually have any point of comparison, but I would imagine that
closer ties to a compiler could help here.
Though much may be a question of how much can be stuffed into the
debugging info.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, (continued)
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/08
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/02/09
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/09
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/09
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/09
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Daniel Colascione, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Helmut Eller, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Daniel Colascione, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, David Kastrup, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, John Yates, 2015/02/10
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11